Search This Blog

Friday, July 23, 2010

A lawsuit against Augusta State University in Georgia alleges school officials essentially gave a graduate student in counseling the choice of giving up her Christian beliefs or being expelled from the graduate program.

School officials Mary Jane Anderson-Wiley, Paulette Schenck and Richard Deaner demanded student Jen Keeton, 24, go through a "remediation" program after she asserted homosexuality is a behavioral choice, not a "state of being" as a professor said, according to the complaint.

Also named as defendants in the case that developed in May and June are other administrators and the university system's board of regents.

The remediation program was to include "sensitivity training" on homosexual issues, additional outside study on literature promoting homosexuality and the plan that she attend a "gay pride parade" and report on it.

The lawsuit, filed by attorneys working with the Alliance Defense Fund, asserted the school cannot violate the Constitution by demanding that a person's beliefs be changed.

"ASU faculty have promised to expel Miss Keeton from the graduate Counselor Education program, not because of poor academic showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity," the law firm explained. ...

Ah! Let's see if we can unpack all this.

Apparently, according to the school, homosexual behavior is not a behavioral choice, but is rather a “state of being.” You know, the old "I was born this way (and you can't judge me)" whinge.

But, on the other hand, apparently Miss Keeton's “homophobia” is NOT a “state of being,” but is, rather, a behavioral choice.

Is that how it works?

But how does that work? Why should we believe that that is correct? If we are to believe that "homophilia" is not a behavioral choice, but is rather a "state of being," why should we not *also* believe that "homophobia" is not a behavioral choice, but is rather a "state of being?"

Why does the gander get his own special sauce?

If the demander of special rights based on what he wants to do with his genitals ... er, if the "gay" "rights" activist ... can assert, "This is the way I was born and you have no moral right to judge my behavior which follows from the way I was born" then why cannot the rest of us assert the very same in response?

But, we all know that the "liberals" will shriek like chimpanzees (and fling poop) against the very suggestion that it is as fully appropriate to apply the very argument they champion as a defense of "homophilia" to serve as a defense of "homophobia."

This is yet one more instance of the intellectual dishonesty of “liberals”-- they’ll say anything and its opposite because they don’t give a damn about truth, they don't give a damn about anything other than power over the lives, and minds, of others.

I wonder if leroy would agree that a man cannot become a woman via surgery (or vice versa). That would nip the whole 'transexual' question in the bud.

But, agreed. What leroy says is bullshit. Even if it were granted that homosexual urges were linked to genetics (and that is a damn dicey link to establish), it wouldn't matter. An urge is not an act itself. An urge requires acting upon. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, can control many of the urges they have, whether or not they were born with them.

I'll also note that leroy speaks of a 'deviant' minority. Apparently, he means a 'minority' of people who acquired a taste for homosexual behavior despite not being born with it. But that would obliterate his claim that 'homosexuals cannot be "converted"'. They can acquire new urges later in life.

Some persons seem to be born with very ... hmmm, intense ... tempers; me, for instance (and most of my family members, for that matter). Other persons seem to be born with a more relaxed, or easygoing, temper. So, clearly, since I was born with an intense temper, it would be wrong for me to "not be true to myself" by trying to control it, or redirect it, or *gasp* deny it expression. And, clearly, it would be even more wrong for others to judge/condemn me for any open expression of my temper. Or the results.

Right?

Some persons seem to be born with a very ... hmmm, affectionate ... disposition towards pubescent boys. I trust I don't need to be more graphic than that. At any rate, such persons frequently claim to have been born that way. So, clearly, since such persons were born with such affection for pubescent boys, it would be wrong for them to "not be true to thenselves" by trying to control it, or redirect it, or *gasp* deny it expression. And, clearly, it would be even more wrong for others to judge/condemn them for any open expression of their affection. Or the results.

Right?

Some persons seem to be born with a very ... hmmm, affectionate ... disposition towards small children. I trust I don't need to be more graphic than that. At any rate, such persons frequently claim to have been born that way. So, clearly, since such persons were born with such affection for small children, it would be wrong for them to "not be true to thenselves" by trying to control it, or redirect it, or *gasp* deny it expression. And, clearly, it would be even more wrong for others to judge/condemn them for any open expression of their affection. Or the results.

You have tried the usual besmirching little false analogy. Homosexuality is legal and occurs between consenting adults. Paedophilia does not meet those criteria. Compare apples with apples please, not oranges.

Actually, an article that points out that what we label as exclusively homosexual behavior is a statistical rarity - rather, it tends to be a bisexual preference that ends up being directed via social pressures to be exclusively homosexual.

Add to this that the practice itself seems to lean more towards choice (a key word for liberals it seems - until it becomes politically inexpedient)...

...So would the school administrators' christophobic behavior be considered something that they couldn't help having as well? In which case, the argument that they're simply biological robots that can't control their behavior (or political views) is quite telling.

Studies of homosexuals and heterosexuals have found that the two groups are similar on most traits because most ‘gay’ persons are to some degree heterosexual. The contrast is the label, and this is what has an enormous influence on one’s self-identity, which is a major influence in causing homosexual behaviour... 'As Michael Foucault writes in his History of Sexuality, until [the nineteenth century and after] "the sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species".'

I don't think Answers in Genesis is a credible source of independant, peer-reviewed studies and their results AWA.There are innumerable studies which do meet the criteria that clearly show that gays are born and that 'conversion therapy' does not work.

According to Leroy, "homosexuals" are basically serial rapists. Beholden to their urges, unable to keep from acting on them, unable to overcome them. Like The Incredible Hulk, only... you know, with more sodomy.

Of course, if you read up on the studies that did show success, there's always this counter: "They could be lying when they say they've changed. Or maybe they were bisexuals or VERY confused heterosexuals to begin with, not actual homosexuals." As usual, skepticism is great - hell, mandated - when the conclusion is wrong.

Sorry, Leroy, you're wrong. Just because you're able to close your eyes, cover your ears, and convince yourself of the above Hulk Hypothesis doesn't mean anyone else does. And frankly, you do a disservice to every person out there with homosexual desires by reinforcing such nonsense for no better reason than to make yourself feel better.

Crude, on what basis can you possibly justify your ludicrous assertion?

Attempts at non-comparative analogies are intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

You're the one playing three wise monkeys. Your refusal to acknowledge the empirical evidence from independant, peer-reviewed studies merely exposes your fear of the truth because it may conflict with your fingers in ears, eyes closed, 'la la la', god-smitten ignorance.

Crude, on what basis can you possibly justify your ludicrous assertion?

Your own embarrassing display, right here in this thread?

Attempts at non-comparative analogies are intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

Good thing I didn't do that, then. I just followed your own words, plainly read, exactly to where they naturally lead. But your words, as they are, are important to you. Back off, qualify your words, assume a more reasonable position and surprise! - you lose.

I've read the "independant" studies. The actual studies, straight from the soft science researchers. Have you? They support my point of view. A view, by the way, I haven't bothered outlining here beyond "People with homosexual urges are not Incredible Hulk savages, unable to forsake their desires, and so on". Which, amusingly, you won't explicitly disown. Because the moment you acknowledge "Alright, people with urges don't necessarily have to act on them. In fact, they can make such choices themselves, among others," your whole line of argument shatters, and you retreat to a fall back position.

So save yourself some time: Just retreat. Clearly you're not ready to think about this like a rational human being. After all, the ability to do that - to rationally reflect, to make choices - is anathema to your position here so far. "They" can't control themselves, remember?

Psychoanalysis isn't a 1 on 1 game! It is when an appropriately trained and qualified person talks with a person, may put them through some tests, and then through analysis defines certain characteristics of that person and the reasons behind their behaviors.What are your qualifications Crude?

So my statements regarding homosexuality, that they are born that way and that conversion therapy is a sham, which are backed by scientific evidence; are cause for you claiming that I alluded to them being serial rapists in some way?

Where do you people get off with your lies, misrepresentations and unfounded, unsupported assertions!

Psychoanalysis isn't a 1 on 1 game! It is when an appropriately trained and qualified person talks

No, Leroy, in common discussion parlance it's when one person starts focusing on the psychology of the other person as part of their schtick. And I can play that game - and yes, it is a game - better than you can. So you may not want to walk that road again.

So my statements regarding homosexuality, that they are born that way and that conversion therapy is a sham, which are backed by scientific evidence; are cause for you claiming that I alluded to them being serial rapists in some way?

Because yelling "They are backed by scientific evidence!" doesn't make it so? Because whether or not a gay man can be "made hetero", whatever that means, is hilariously beside the point? That the scientific studies amply show that people can in fact control, and in some cases even change, their urges?

I don't give a crap here what you believe, even with all your heart and soul. I care about what you argue, what ideas you present, and what evidence you provide. So far, you're nothing but assertions and horrible reasoning, misrepresentations, and a whole lot of emotion in place of argument.

But I did give you an out: Can homosexuals control their urges? Can they choose not to engage in a given act? Or are they slaves to their urges, unable to keep from fulfilling them when they strike?

I predicted you wouldn't answer, because you know it cuts you off at the knees. You're proving me right so far.

Where do you people get off with your lies, misrepresentations and unfounded, unsupported assertions!

You are the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

Nonsense, and you know it. In fact, that seems an awful lot like projection on your part. Oops, there's that psychoanalysis again.

So far I have seen nothing from you except self-serving assertions, non-evidential allegations and unfounded histrionic diatribes.

Homosexuals can control their urges, for a while, to an extent. Just ask George Rekers and Ted Haggard.

They are still homosexuals. And they were born that way. And conversion therapy does not work. And it is perverted thinking to try to align them with things such as paedophilia.

Sahll I compare committed catholics or anglicans to mormons or scientologists? How about Jim Jones or the Branch Davidian sect? No? But they are all people of faith whose behaviors and attitudes are dictated by that faith.

If I was to attempt to psychoanalise you (with no more ability than you) I would say that your attitude on homosexuality is based on your belief of misinformation about them and maybe your fear that it may be catching.

So far I have seen nothing from you except self-serving assertions, non-evidential allegations and unfounded histrionic diatribes.

Nonsense and lies. You're the one who came in here making assertions - as Ilion said, they've been bullshit. The fact that you won't defend them - that you want to make assertions, then put the burden of proof on me when I say 'bullshit' - speaks volumes. You can't defend squat, because you're unarmed here.

Homosexuals can control their urges, for a while, to an extent. Just ask George Rekers and Ted Haggard.

And here we go, ladies and gentlemen. Just as I said: According to Leroy, homosexuals can't control their urges. If they try, they'll be snorting cocaine off the genitals of male hookers before long.

Haggard wasn't corrupt and duplicitous! No, he was a VICTIM. He was denying who he was. That's what you get when you try to control yourself - The Incredibly Gay Hulk wins, every time.

Sahll I compare committed catholics or anglicans to mormons or scientologists? How about Jim Jones or the Branch Davidian sect? No? But they are all people of faith whose behaviors and attitudes are dictated by that faith.

First, you already lashed out at religious believers, so this "what if..?" scenario has already been played out.

Second, Jim Jones was an atheist.

Third, you are the one saying that homosexuals are unable to control their urges. They are, by your own words, some kind of strange sex monsters. If they don't give in and start having sex when they need to, The Gay Hulk comes out. They're all coked out gay prostitute procuring monsters waiting to happen if they don't get their sex fix.

I am the one saying your point of view is freaking ludicrous and insulting. Any typical person with homosexual desires should find your point of view despicable. It's akin to saying that if a man with heterosexual urges doesn't get sex when he wants, he'll start raping / molesting.

If I was to attempt to psychoanalise you (with no more ability than you)

Perhaps you should go back to the start. Ilion alleged that if homophobia is not a choice, then neither is homophobia.

You're not talking to Ilion here. You're talking to me. If you want to argue with him and not me, say so.

What's more, Ilion expressly gave examples of people who have a given desire or urge, yet choose not to act on them. There is a difference between a given desire, and the act of fulfilling that desire. Ilion focused on homosexual behavior even in his original post. He can correct me if I'm wrong. And I damn well know he will too.

I responded that homosexuals are born that way but that homophobia, like racism and discrimination is learned and developed. You have provdied zero evidence for anything you have said to rebut this.

You've provided zero evidence to support it. I've called it bullshit, because that's what it is. You're the one making the claim - support it. You won't. You know what studies you'd have to cite to support it. You know how weak they are, how forced your interpretation is, and how it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I'm not in the hotseat here - you are. You're the one making inane claims. I'm just calling them inane.

Homosexuals can practice celibacy as effectively as heterosexuals can, but that's not 'conversion'.

Oh, so you're backtracking - yes, homosexuals really are able to control their urges. They don't need to act on them. They don't need to give in to them.

But that just concedes all the ground to me, and much of it to Jen Keeton. Yes, behavior is a choice. They are not, in fact, Incredible Gay Hulks, bereft of control of their actions - even granting what inclinations they may possess, for whatever reason.

You'd do well to think about what you just conceded here.

You then started extrapolating into

I stated what your position was, given that you refused to admit that people were responsible for their own behavior and made choices. I called you out on it, and you insisted that any gay person who tried to deny their urges would end up like Haggard, snorting coke off gay prostitutes, behaving like an Incredible Gay Hulk. Now you're backing off, but to do so is to just concede the argument to me.

So, thank you kindly.

Unless you can demonstrate some sort of qualifications

The fact that I'm awesome at playing the psychoanalysis game for what it is is demonstration of qualification enough. I don't need more than that.

I don't see whether it matters if a person was born a homosexual or chooses to be homosexual. The fact remains that some people are homosexual and being so harms no one.

I agree with leroy that homosexuals can control their sexual urges no better that heterosexuals.

Apparently, according to the school, homosexual behavior is not a behavioral choice, but is rather a "state of being." You know, the old "I was born this way (and you can't judge me)" whinge.

I only skimmed the WorldNetDaily article, but I did read an article from an Augusta paper about this. Because they are being sued by Jen Keeton, neither the university nor the group of professors involved has made any public comments about the case. So we don't know the their position on homosexual behavior or why they acted as they did.

But, on the other hand, apparently Miss Keeton's "homophobia" is NOT a "state of being," but is, rather, a behavioral choice.

Actually, Jen Keeton's position on homosexuality are a result of her religious beliefs. She wants to be a high school counselor and stated that if she encountered a homosexual student, she would attempt to convert them. That's the real problem here; it amounts to her imposing her religious beliefs on others.

Leroy: "I don't think Answers in Genesis is a credible source of independant, peer-reviewed studies and their results AWA..."

Because, of course, it's not coming from those "innumerable" sources that you have - yet to cite.

Actually, considering that Dr. Bergman has upwards of 66 references in the article - mostly from secular psychiatric and biology journals on the subject - I'd say that your "innumerable sources" can be reasonably interpreted in more than one Politically Correct way.

In fact, several of those secular medical references in the AIG article argue against what you're claiming - that homosexuality is something that can't be helped - but rather affirm that it's more a personal or societal choice rather than merely "my genes made me do it".

"There are innumerable studies" [Such as?...] "which do meet the criteria that clearly show that gays are born and that 'conversion therapy' does not work."

Same could be said for the recidivism rate in the prison/criminal population.

Now, is that more an artifact of the therapy's ineffectiveness, the inability of the institution to administer it effectively, or the societal (and political) pressures brought to bear on having the therapy stigmatized for whatever reason? (since of course, it's only natural - it happens in prison all the time after all!)

Orandat: "I don't see whether it matters if a person was born a homosexual or chooses to be homosexual. The fact remains that some people are homosexual and being so harms no one."

So STD's, AIDs, as well as other choice physical ailments associated with the practice of homosexuality - these don't harm the larger population? Same could be said for heterosexual promiscuity, btw - it doesn't harm anyone else?

Well, that's news to the CDC.

Perhaps on Mars it doesn't harm anyone else. This is precluding the societal effects of having people disregard the basis of family and a healthy (shudder) sexual relationship (not in the plural, notice).

Ilion: But, on the other hand, apparently Miss Keeton's "homophobia" is NOT a "state of being," but is, rather, a behavioral choice.

Orandat: "Actually, Jen Keeton's position on homosexuality are a result of her religious beliefs."

But according to the High Priest of Science - Dawkins - religious belief is apparently a virus, mental of course, but nonetheless non volitional (which is why he writes books attempting to discredit this virus and win converts).

So really, Miss Keaton is simply suffering from a societally stigmatized illness - her religious beliefs. It's not her fault. She - like the aforementioned school officials who are ramrodding her into their state-mandated PC mold - really have no say in such personal matters as these - they're simply afflicted with a predetermined outcome that they can't control...

If only the Nuremberg defendants had thought this one up for themselves.

"That's the real problem here; it amounts to her imposing her religious beliefs on others."

As opposed to the Politically Correct belief system - which has to be adhered to by citizens of der Staat if they hope to gain (or keep) employment.

And of course, they have to endorse - implicitly through silence or explicitly through propaganda - PC tenants such as homosexuality, promiscuity, and (soon to be added) polygamy.

You don't seriously expect me to give any credence to anything from Answers in Genesis do you? That'd be like taking biology class from Ken Ham! I wouldn't provide references to you from somewhere called 'Dancing Queens' or similar.

Conclusion of the first: We have examined many causes for homosexuality in the preceding pages, both biological and social. And although an interesting topic of debate, no one theory or experiment leads to a definitive answer. Some believe that the characters found on Xq28 are the Holy Grail of homosexuality research, the elusive 'gay gene'. Others may place stock in the theories of Foucault and Halperin. Perhaps Simon LeVay did reveal to us that anatomy is the key to understanding the difference in sexual orientation. Perhaps there is no one answer, that sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual; gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual, all are a cause of a complex interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical factors, shaping the individual at an early age.

So much for "they're born that way!"

From the third:

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association concluded there was no scientific evidence that homosexuality was a disorder and removed it from its diagnostic glossary of mental disorders. The International Classification of Diseases of the World Health Organisation followed suit in 1992.

Note: Underplayed is the fact that prior to 1973, homosexuality was listed as a disorder. And the change in 1973 came due in large part to heavy lobbying.

From the fifth link:

Will finding such "gay genes" rule out the idea that social and psychological influences can have a significant effect on a man's sexual preference? "Absolutely not," declares molecular biologist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute, who headed both the 1993 investigation and the new one. "From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not to negate the psychosocial factors."

The sixth? That's a site run by Gregory Herek, an activist for gay causes. Sure, Leroy won't send you to "Dancing Queens" or a site that's obviously wildly biased. He'll send you to one that sounds vaguely neutral... that is in fact wildly biased. He'll apparently accept an AIG website so long as the name is different.

So what do we have here? Assertions without evidence (Note: Getting a psychiatrist to assert something, and no evidence being provided by him, is as well an assertion without evidence), a heavy dose of value judgments (Which is detached from science), one wildly biased site, and a number of statements that actually cut Leroy's case off at the knees.

So, thanks Leroy! I'll actually be quoting a couple of those sources to counter claims that anyone who has homosexual urges was born with them.

'complex interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical factors' - 'cognitive' is not totally externally derived. And as for 'anatomical', hello!

'Underplayed is the fact that prior to 1973...' - subjective opinion.

'not inherited' and 'Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not to negate the psychosocial factors.' do not negate the evidence.

I'll let you try to prove that the sixth is biased.

Care to address the others? Or offer anything with the same level of credibility?

'So what do we have here? Assertions without evidence (Note: Getting a psychiatrist to assert something, and no evidence being provided by him, is as well an assertion without evidence), a heavy dose of value judgments (Which is detached from science), one wildly biased site, and a number of statements that actually cut Leroy's case off at the knees.' - nice try, but non-evidential, subjective and opinionated. Taking the jury on a fairy tale journey are we?

Selective presentation of evidence and failure to reveal all relevant information? That sort of behavior could get a lawyer struck off!

Crude,I'm glad you're enjoying laughing at Leroy's literature bluffing. And I'm glad he has given you some links you may find of use in the future.

Nevertheless, what Leroy is really doing is trying to distract the reader from noticing that he has already demonstrated his "liberal" intellectual dishonesty. For, after all, the *point* of this thread is to demonstrate that "liberals" assert that "homophilia" is inborn -- and that somehow that places homosexual acts beyond judgment -- while denying the same (ahem!) argument for "homophobia."

I've finally read (skimmed, to be precise) some of the comments in this thread. Pardon me while I roll my eyes.

Leroy (to Crude): "Your interpretation of the facts and reality is amazing."

That's hugely funny. Consider, just a few posts previous:

Leroy (to Crude): "Perhaps you should go back to the start. Ilion alleged that if homophobia is not a choice, then neither is homophobia."

Good night! The man can't even read, and he's trying to tell someone else that "Your interpretation of the facts and reality is amazing."

Crude: "Oh boy, a literature bluff from someone who didn't read his sources."

To me, one of the most amusing things about a "literature bluff" such as Leroy tried is that generally demonstrates that someone doesn't understand some very important facts about 'science' -- prominently, that 'science' can't be used to establish truth. Second in prominence is that anyone who has been conscious knows that certain pronouncements of 'science' are actually pronouncements of politics ... and just about any recent 'scientific' pronouncement about homosexuality is going to be politics, with the science being mere window dressing for the worshippers of 'Science!'

Ilíon: "Leroy, Unless you can stick to the actual topic, you are no longer welcome to post on my blog."

Leroy: "How can challenging your assertion re homosexuality and homophobia with argument and evidence not be on topic?"

If you cannot understand what the topic is -- even though it has been pointed out, more than once -- that is not my problem, nor anything I can fix.